Advaita and Vishishtadvaita Both systems teach Advaita, i.e., non-duality or monism. There exist not several fundamentally distinct principles, such as the Prakriti and the Purusha of the Sankhyas, but there exists only one all-embracing being. While, however, Advaita taught by Sri Sankara is a rigorous absolute one, Sri Ramanuja’s doctrine has to be characterised as Vishishta Advaita, i.e., qualified non-duality, non-duality with a difference. According to Sankara, whatever is, is Brahman, and Brahman itself is absolutely homogeneous, so that all difference and plurality must be illusory. According to Ramanuja also, whatever is, is Brahman; but Brahman is not of a homogenous nature, but contains within itself elements of plurality owing to which it truly manifests itself in a diversified world. The world with its variety of material forms of existence and individual souls is not unreal Maya, but a real part of Brahman’s nature, the body investing the universal Self. The Brahman of Sankara is in itself impersonal, a homogeneous mass of objectless thought, transcending all attributes; a personal God it becomes only through its association with the unreal principle of Maya so that strictly speaking Sankara’s personal God, his Isvara, is himself something unreal, Ramanuja’s Brahman, on the other hand, is essentially a Personal God, the all-powerful and all-wise ruler of a real world permeated and animated by his spirit. There is thus no room for the distinction between Parama Nirguna and an Aparama Saguna Brahman, between Brahman and Isvara.

The Royal Science and Brahma Vidya By Swami Sivananda “Kingly science, kingly secret, the supreme purifier is this, realisable by direct intuitional knowledge, according to righteousness, very easy to perform, imperishable.” -Bhagavad-Gita IX-2 Brahma-Vidya (science of God), is the Science of sciences. The knower of Brahma-Vidya or the Science of Brahman or the Science of the Absolute, knows everything. His knowledge is full. He has the whole experience through intuition or revelation. Take your firm seat on the rock-bottom of the Upanishadic truths and accept the findings of science only if they tally with the Upanishadic truths, otherwise reject them ruthlessly. All secular sciences have their own limitations. A scientist works on the physical plane with a finite mind and with instruments. He knows the physical laws. He has some knowledge of the elements, atoms and physical energy. His knowledge is fragmentary. He has no experience of the whole. He has no knowledge of transcendental or supersensual things. Science is only a partially unified knowledge. A scientist infers, investigates and draws exact conclusions from his observations. He understands Nature but he knows nothing of the origin or destiny of Nature. Who made the sun and gave power to its rays? Who combined four parts of nitrogen with one part of oxygen? Who gave power to the electrons? Who gave power to the atoms to combine into molecules? Who or what made and bestowed upon the ultimate particles of matter their marvellous power of varied interaction? Science does not know this great mystery. On the contrary, Yoga is completely unified knowledge. A Yogi gets inner, divine realisation. He clearly sees with his inner Yogic eye the subtle rudiments of matter. He identifies himself with the Supreme Being who is the Lord of Prakriti or matter. He gets control over the five elements. He clearly understands the whole mystery of creation through direct intuitional knowledge. The scientist lacks this sort of knowledge. He has only experimental knowledge. In the matter of evidence in psychological questions, the sense-perceptions with which science naturally deals are only second-rate criteria and are therefore to be received with caution. The closing of the external channels of sensation is usually the signal for the opening of the psychic and, from all evidence, it would seem that the psychic sense is more extensive, acute and in every way more dependable than the physical. The business of science is generalisation of phenomena; it is the function of philosophy and Yoga to explain. Religion is the practical aspect of philosophy. Philosophy is the rational aspect of religion. The scientist tries to answer the “how” of the problem; the philosopher and the Yogi attempt to answer the “why” of it. It is a mistake to say that such and such an event occurs because of certain laws of Nature. The laws of Nature do not give any real explanation of the phenomena. A law of Nature is simply a statement, in terms as general as possible, of what happens under given circumstances in a natural phenomenon. Science is only concerned with the phenomena. Science shows a marvellous harmony of Nature. But it is the problem of philosophy and Yoga to solve the why” of Nature’s harmony. Scientists possess a partial knowledge of the universe. They have not understood the whole code of Nature’s laws. They have no knowledge of the occult side of things. They have no knowledge of the astral, mental and higher planes such as Brahma-Loka or the world of Brahma. The unseen world is of far greater importance than the sense-universe which is visible to the naked eye. A fully developed Yogi can function on all planes and so he has full knowledge of the manifested and the unmanifested Nature. The senses, by which you get a knowledge of the external objects, are not fully developed. Therefore, the knowledge obtained is partial. The external senses are exact counterparts of the internal astral senses. Scientists have no knowledge of the subtle rudiments of matter. Life will become fuller and richer when one develops this inner eyesight by the practice of Yoga. Just as blood, when seen under the microscope, reveals many mysterious things, such as leucocytes, nuclei, pigment, germs and bacilli, so also the inner Yogic eye reveals many a mystery to the hidden side of things. The knowledge of the scientists is only fragmentary or partial, whereas the knowledge of the Yogis who have realised the Truth is full and perfect. In its outlook, science differs radically from philosophical musings. Consequently, the mode of approach of science to its specific problems is different from that of philosophy. Yet there is some similarity in the findings of both science and philosophy when some broad questions are discussed. Scientists have to learn many things from the seers of the East. Who gave power to the electrons to revolve? What is at the bottom of these electrons? Who gave life to the cell or the protoplasm? Who gave intelligence to the cells to secrete milk or bile or gastric juice from the blood? The scientists are still observing and experimenting. They are still groping in darkness. What is the cause of the origin of an impulse? Who is the director of the mind? What is the cause of the origin of thought? Even if all the living scientists were to put their heads together to solve these questions, they cannot give definite and conclusive answers. The mind of a scientist cannot work on higher spiritual planes. It is gross and impure. it has outgoing tendencies. It is filled with desires, passions and worldly impressions. The scientist cannot look within, introspect and meditate. He can analyse the atoms of different elements but he cannot do self-analysis. He can bombard the atoms, watch the movements of the electrons and make discoveries in Nature. But the mind of a Rishi or a Yogi is subtle and pure. It is free from worldly desires and passions, from selfishness, lust and hatred. It is equipped with

Brahma-Vidya and Upanishads by Swami Sivananda The school of philosophical thought known as the Vedanta is also called Uttara-mimamsa. The founder of the Vedanta system of philosophy was Badarayana Vyasa. The founder of Purva-mimamsa school was Jaimini, the disciple of Sri Vyasa. Of these two, Purva-mimamsa is generally understood to imply the inquiry into the Mantra portion of the Vedas, while Uttara-mimamsa is understood to mean an inquiry into the Upanishad portion of the Vedas. In other words, Purva-mimamsa treats of Karma Kanda; Uttara-mimamsa deals with Jnana Kanda. The Brahma Sutras of Badarayana or Sri Vyasa are termed as the Vedanta Darshana. They are called by this name, because they are based upon the Upanishads, the end or the final part of the Veda. These Brahma Sutras are the outcome of the harmonising of the apparently conflicting Upanishadic texts by Badarayana. The Bhashya written by Sri Sankaracharya on the Brahma Sutras is known as Sariraka Bhashya. The Vedas, each of which has a Samhita, Brahmana, Aranyaka and Upanishad, are again subdivided into two parts viz., the Karma Kanda or the work-portion and the Jnana Kanda or the knowledge-portion. The former leads man to world by happiness and enjoyment in Svarga or heaven and the latter to Moksha or liberation. The Samhita and the Brahmana sections go to make up the Karma Kanda and the Aranyaka and the Upanishad sections form the Jnana Kanda. Brahma Vidya or that knowledge by which the Brahman is attained is dealt with in the Upanishads. The Upanishads as the final part of the Vedas are Vedanta, the end of the Vedas. Through the divisions of Rig Veda and others, the Vedas are said to be four in number. Their branches are many. So also the Upanishads. In Rig Veda, there are twenty one branches. There are 109 branches in Yajur Veda. There are 1000 branches in Sama Veda. There are fifty branches in Atharvana Veda. In each branch there is one Upanishad. The word Upanishad is formed by adding the Krip suffix and the prefixes Upa and Ni to the root Shad meaning (1) to shatter or kill, (2) to attain and (3) to loosen. By the word Upanishad is denoted the knowledge of the knowable entity inculcated by the work which is to be commented upon. By what etymological process this knowledge is denoted by the term Upanishad is now explained. This knowledge is called Upanishad by virtue of its signification that it shatters or destroys the seed of Samsara such as ignorance and the rest, in those seekers after emancipation, who, devoid of all desires for objects seen and heard of, acquire the knowledge called Upanishad to be hereafter explained, and with their mind firmly concentrated therein meditate on it; for it will also be said later on well ascertaining that he will be freed from the jaws of death or the knowledge of Brahman is called Upanishad because of the fact that it leads to Brahman, in that it makes the seekers after emancipation just above described attain the highest Brahman; for it will be said later on, having attained the Brahman he becomes untainted and immortal; or, even the knowledge of Agni is denoted by the term Upanishad, because of its connection with the meaning of the root, to loosen; for, the knowledge of Agni, the first born, the knower, born of Brahman the subject matter of the second of the boons asked for leads to the attainment of heaven and thus loosens or enfeebles the lot of misery; such as residence in the womb, birth, old age, etc., continually recurring in this world. It will also be said later on, having reached heaven, they enjoy Immortality. It may be argued that students apply the term Upanishad even to the book, as when they say, we shall study or teach the Upanishad. This is no fault, as the meaning of the root Shad, i.e., the killing of the cause of Samsara, etc., cannot be attached to the mere work but is attached to knowledge; and even the mere work may also be denoted by that word, because it serves the self-same purpose, as when it said ghee verily is life. The word Upanishad therefore is used in its primary sense when it is used to denote knowledge; but it is used by courtesy, i.e., in a secondary sense to denote the work. Thus by the mere analytical explanation of the word Upanishad, those who are fully competent to acquire knowledge have been stated. The whole subject matter of knowledge has also been stated to be the thorough release from the bondage of Samsara consisting in the attainment of the Brahman. The meaning of the Upanishad may be either because it lessens the numerous evils of conception, birth, old age, disease, etc., in persons who take kindly to this knowledge of Brahman and approach it with faith and devotion, or because it makes them reach Brahman, or because it totally destroys the cause of Samsara such as ignorance, etc., thus from the several meanings of the root Shad preceded by Upani. Sri Rama says to Hanuman: The only means by which the final emancipation is attained is through Mandukya Upanishad alone, which is enough for the salvation of all aspirants. If Jnana is not attained thereby, by the study of ten Upanishads thou shalt soon attain Jnana and then My seat. O son of Anjana, if thy Jnana is not made firm, study well the 32 Upanishads. Thou shalt get release. If thou longest after Videha Mukti, study the 108 Upanishads. The Upanishads are the mystic experiences of the Rishis. The Upanishads, the Gita and the Brahma Sutras are technically called the Prasthanatraya. These are the three authoritative books on Hindu Philosophy. Any teacher who claims himself as an Acharya and who wants to open a new school of thought must write a commentary on these three important books. All the previous Acharyas, Sri Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva have written commentaries

The Great Reality and its Nature By Swami Sivananda The Struggle for the Infinite The empirical examination of experience shows that the individual is compelled to develop a relation with objective existence. This is clear proof of the insufficiency and the finitude and, consequently, the transient character of the individual. But the urge for perfection points to the existence of a supremely unlimited Being beyond which there can be nothing. The analysis of the Self discloses the existence of the conscious Self as distinct from unconscious matter and mind. But the eternal nature of the Self requires it to be secondless and, hence, the existence of unconscious matter becomes unwarranted. The practical moral urge and the purified reason are corroborated by intuition which proclaims the existence of an indivisible, secondless, conscious Being. This supreme conception of the Reality necessitates life to be lived according to strict righteousness and moral discipline. The better the conception of the Truth, the more quickly is it realised. The First ObservationHuman consciousness at once presupposes the authenticity of the existence of the personal being which is the root of this consciousness. The very meaning of human consciousness is objectivity which sets in opposition a subject or the self against the non-subject or the not-self. Individuality of the subject and the object is the necessary condition of all forms of perception or knowledge in the world. Individual consciousness and individual existence are inseparable. The very first factor that the individual is faced within experience is the awareness of the existence of something which it cannot consider as the self. This is the starting point of active thinking and action. The individual is confronted with the urgent need of developing a relationship with the vast universe which stares at it as the not-self. This need marks the nature of the struggle of life as a whole, its purpose, method and goal. The need for external relation, however, is the outcome of a practical want in oneself, a want of thoroughness and genuineness in one’s own being. This is the hypothesis upon which is constructed the edifice of philosophical speculation. Self-consciousness refuses to rest blind and idle. It stimulates mental and physical activity, a postulate which demands no reason. The value of life is determined by the characteristics of the effects of this activity. The sense of value is based on the extent, the depth and, consequently, the longevity of the experience of conscious satisfaction in the self. The worth and the righteous nature of all activity is, therefore, dependent on how far it nears the most supreme form of happiness which is the standard set by the results of the computation of perfection as determined by the irresistible urge for completeness of one’s existence. The nature of this happiness, however, remains to be found out. The acts of life show that the individual consciously and voluntarily acts because of the joys which are experienced by the self as a consequence of those acts. An action is a transformation from one condition to another, which, naturally, is the effect of the inability to rest eternally, in a particular condition. It is observed that all actions, mental as well as physical, have a special characteristic of being directed towards some or the other of the forms in which the not-self appears. The impossibility to withhold conscious action leads us to the conclusion that there must be an intimate and permanent connection between the subjective conscious being and the vast objective existence. The fact that the vaster this objective existence included in the self’s relations and the nearer it is to the self the greater is the intensity of happiness experienced by the self points the way to the true nature of the ultimate Reality. Logically the highest bliss must be the result of a self-merging of the unlimited existence in Self- consciousness. This means the dissolution of the not-self in the Consiousness of the Self, the disappearance of the hallucination of objectivity in Self-identical, objectless, absolute, Awareness merely, which exists not only including but transcending the entire realm of objective existence in quality as well as quantity. Analysis of the SelfOn carefully scrutinising the waking, the dreaming and the deep sleep states, it is observed that the Self is different from the physical body, the psychological organs and ignorance which are respectively manifested in externality, internality and nihility of consciousness. Further, consciousness must necessarily be an essential constituent of the Self, for without consciousness existence itself is valueless. This at first leads us to conclude that the Self must be a conscious witness of the physical, the psychological and the ignorant conditions. But being a witness means existing as an unconcerned observer of certain phenomena which exist apart from oneself. This compels us to make the Self an individual perceiver with its rival, the percept. Metaphysically, individuality is the opposite of eternity, for, eternity means changeless self-existence which is synonymous with completeness and infinitude. Nothing that is dependent is eternal and nothing that is finite or individualised is independent. The subject cannot hope to exist eternally and at the same time be a relative of some external existence. To be eternal, the subject must be absolute, which is the fusion of the totality of existence in the subject or the Self. In order that it should be Real, the subject must at the same time become all objects, the entire existence, in which case the subjectness of the subject is sacrificed to or rather swallowed by a larger infinity of being where the subject and the object are not separated even in the least. Hence, if the Self is eternal it cannot be something existing apart from the three empirical bodies which are objects of the witness-Self. And, the Self must be eternal, for, at no time is it possible to deny the existence of the conscious Self. Now we are led to a twofold quandary. The Self cannot be called a differentiated witness of the three bodies,